Appeal No. 2001-1855
Application No. 08/897,440
read texture pattern into the texture palette. The registered texture pattern in the
texture palette may be used as desired by the user during editing another document.
According to the rejection of claims 1-14, the examiner finds (Answer at 3) that
Hamanaka discloses the invention, including displaying image data, but does not
disclose that the image data is used as pattern data in editing an image. The rejection
refers to Wolf for the teaching deemed to be missing from Hamanaka. Wolf is relied
upon as teaching that a part of image data is “registered in a memory (412) (a file
retrieval and storage mechanism 412) for use in editing an image [col. 9, lines 32-56,
figures 4 and 5].” (Answer at 3-4.)
In appellants’ view, LCD 126 of Hamanaka displays menu information, but not
obtained image data. Appellants quote extensively from the reference (Brief at 14-15)
in support of the argument. However, appellants appear to skip column 17, lines 10-13
of the reference.
Hamanaka’s apparatus includes a magneto-optical disk 36 for storing image
information from a document read by scanner 4. Col. 5, ll. 36-43. Hamanaka at the top
of column 17 describes retrieving document information from magneto-optical disk 36
by using a menu on LC display 126. “[B]y depressing the ‘display key’ on the touch
panel 125, the first page of the selected document is displayed on the LC display 70
[sic; 126] and the contents of the document can be confirmed.” Col. 17, ll. 10-13.
We thus find appellants’ argument that Hamanaka fails to display obtained
image data unpersuasive.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007